Well there’s another one in the eye for all those legions of Ian Bell detractors.
The Warwickshire batsman has had to put with more than his fair share of criticism – sometimes justified – during his eight years of test cricket.
A wuss, a tart, a soft-in-the-head fancy dan who goes missing when the chips are down – those are just a few of the derogatory taunts which have been lobbed in his direction.
He could hardly have chosen a more apposite time to – albeit belatedly – emerge from his chrysalis as a champion batsman of grit and flair. Three centuries in an Ashes series, for a team struggling for runs, is no mean feat.
Yet again Bell arrived at the crease with our side in a hole, and three early wickets down for the umpteenth time. Again, the pressure of not just the team’s but the whole of English cricket’s needs were on his shoulders, and although he was overdue a failure, he yet again delivered – and in style. Bell was a class apart.
Yesterday was the first day we’d won since Lord’s, a day of resilient fighting cricket which has got us right back into this match – on a knife-edge though it still is.
Although I often begin a day’s test cricket with a sense of doom, I approached yesterday morning quietly optimistic that what quickly transpired would indeed happen. Australia began seemingly well on top, with all the talk that Chris Rogers – whom despite all the praise had been very lucky – had engineered the tourists into a winning position. But they were still behind our total, and the swift removal of the overnight batsmen would leave them struggling to post a meaningful lead.
And so it turned out, thanks to our clinical despatch of their final five wickets. James Anderson, although he was only bowling to the tail, at last showed some signs of restoring his mojo – but if only Swann had bowled to Rogers much earlier, it could all have been very different anyway.
With the bat, both Pietersen and Bairstow battled hard too – with the latter playing genuinely well until his untimely dismissal. And that complicates any analysis of our batting weaknesses, because there is no simple cause or remedy.
Our problem of repeatedly losing our first three wickets so cheaply has now reached crisis proportions, and something has to be done. But what?
Restoring Root from opener to number six seems simple enough, but would you bring Compton back to partner Cook, or maybe try the in-form Michael Carberry?
Trott’s run of low scores is frustrating because he actually looks in decent touch, but keeps finding odd ways to get out, like yesterday. Maybe he’s trying too hard to up the ante, attempting to come out of his shell by attacking the bowlers more than either he used to do, or is natural to him. Perhaps he should revert to the more attritional, self-denying approach which served him so well before.
But any analysis of our batting must focus around the captain. Is there a growing sense that Cook has been found out?
On flat tracks and against trundling seamers, Cook is deadly, but far too often for a player of his experience, stature and reputation he goes missing when the bowling is penetrative, or in the ascendancy. What kind of career might he have had if he’d been born ten or fifteen years earlier, and attempted to establish himself against McGrath, Donald, Walsh or Wasim?
Cook’s confidence and self-esteem look shattered, and only mental fortitude, and maybe some runs for Essex, can get him back into the shape we so badly need for Australia this winter.
This has been a fascinating and gripping match – one which has illustrated the beauty of test cricket, with its depth, subtlety, and countless twists and turns. There will be some more of those to come today. We resume this morning in almost exactly the same position Australia did yesterday, and if they can do to us what we did to them, twenty four hours ago – quickly knock off the five wickets – they will win the match. But if we can cobble together another fifty to seventy runs, the series will – probably – be ours. Never has a crucial first hour been more crucial.
